Rapid assessments are useful methods for engaging stakeholders, standardizing monitoring activities and supporting later planning stages. This article proposes to extend rapid assessment methods into ‘rapid environmental planning’ and to use it for the education of planning professionals. For the assessment stage, the pressure–state–response model is used, with a participatory valuation of the ecosystem services through supply and demand profile and future trends. The stage of scenario building includes the XLRM methodology (externalities, actions, metrics and relationships), the trends and evaluation of proposals and uncertainties, as well as the formulation of timelines and narratives. The propositional stage included intervention projects, zoning of land use and occupation guidelines. The methodology was evaluated as a didactic resource for undergraduate teaching in a watershed in São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo (Brazil). The results indicated a high educational potential for the students as well as the potential effectiveness of this planning method.
AlonsoL. E., DeichmannJ. L., McKennaS. A., NaskreckiP., & RichardsS. J. (2011). Still counting… biodiversity exploration for conservation: The first 20 years of rapid assessment program. Conservation International.
2.
AmpomahG., & DevisscherT. (2013). Adaptation toolkit: Guidebook for researchers and adaptation practitioners working with local communities. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.climatelearningplatform.org/adaptation-toolkit-guidebook-researchers-and-adaptation-practitioners-working-local-communities
3.
AntunesP., SantosR., & VideiraN. (2006). Participatory decision making for sustainable development—the use of mediated modelling techniques. Land Use policy, 23(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.014
4.
BegossiA. (1993). Ecologia humana: Um enfoque das relacões homem-ambiente. Interciencia, 18(1), 121–132.
5.
BerkesF. (2005). Sistemas sociais, sistemas ecológicos e direitos de apropriação de recursos naturais. In VieiraP. F., BerkesF. & SeixasC. S. (Eds.), Gestão Integrada e Participativa de Recursos Naturais. Conceitos, métodos e experiências. APED, Florianópolis.
6.
BöhnerJ., McCloyK. R., & StroblJ. (2006). SAGA: Analysis and modelling applications (No. 115). Goltze.
7.
BroseM. (Org.) (2001). Metodologia Participativa: uma introdução a 29 instrumentos, Tomo Editorial, Porto Alegre.
8.
BrunetR. (1980). La composition des modeles dans l’analyse spatial. L’espace geographique, 4, 253–265. https://doi.org/10.3406/spgeo.1980.3572
9.
BuarqueS. C. (2008). Construindo o desenvolvimento local sustentável. Garamond.
10.
CallistoM., FerreiraW., MorenoP., GoulartM., & PetrucioM. (2002). Aplicação de um protocolo de avaliação rápida da diversidade de habitats em atividades de ensino e pesquisa (MG-RJ). Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia, 14(1), 91–98. http://jbb.ibict.br//handle/1/708
11.
CarvalhoC. S., MacedoE. S. D., & OguraA. T. (2007). Mapeamento de riscos em encostas e margem de rios. Ministério das Cidades, Brasília. http://planodiretor.mprs.mp.br/arquivos/mapeamento.pdf
12.
ChambersR. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7), 953–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90141-4
13.
CheeY. E. (2004). An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 120(4), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028
14.
CouclelisH. (2005). “Where has the future gone?” Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning. Environment and Planning, 37(8), 1353–1371. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3785
15.
CravenJ., AngaritaH., PerezG.C., & VasquezD. (2017). Development and testing of a river basin management simulation game for integrated management of the Magdalena-Cauca river basin. Environmental Modelling & Software, 90, 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.002
16.
DonatoC. R., RibeiroA. D. S., & SoutoL. D. S. (2014). A conservation status index, as an auxiliary tool for the management of cave environments. International Journal of Speleology, 43(3), 315–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1827-806X.43.3.8
17.
FennessyM. S., JacobsA. D., & KentulaM. E. (2007). An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands, 27, 543–560. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2007)27[543:AEORMF]2.0.CO;2
18.
FeenyD., BerkesF., McCayB. J., & AchesonJ. M. (1990). The tragedy of the commons: Twenty-two years later. Human ecology, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889070
19.
Fortmann-RoeS. (2014). Insight Maker: A general-purpose tool for web-based modeling & simulation. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 47, 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2014.03.013
20.
GameE. T., & GranthamH.S. (2008). Marxan user manual. Univ. of Queensland and Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association. http://marxan.net/downloads/documents/Marxan_User_Manual_2008.pdf
21.
Gómez-BaggethunE., & Ruiz-PérezM. (2011). Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311421708
22.
GuimarãesA., RodriguesA. S. L., & MalafaiaG. (2017). Rapid assessment protocols of rivers as instruments of environmental education in elementary schools. Ambiente & Água, 12(5), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.1996
23.
HartR., & PeidleJ. (2013). A summary of error propagation,Physical Sciences3, Harvard. http://ipl.physics.harvard.edu/wp-uploads/2013/03/PS3_Error_Propagation_sp13.pdf
24.
HoekstraA. Y. (2012). Computer-supported games and role plays in teaching water management. Hydrology and earth system sciences, 16(8), 2985–2994. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2985-2012
25.
KristensenP. (2003). EEA core set of indicators. European Environment Agency. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/europe/monitoring/StPetersburg/EEA%20Core%20Set%20of%20Indicators%20rev2EECCA.pdf
26.
LangJ. C., MarksK. W., KramerP. A., KramerP. R., & GinsburgR. N. (2010). Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment Protocols, Version 5.4. In Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment, Institute for Tropical Marine Ecology. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265148106_Agrra_protocols_version_54
27.
LardonS., & PiveteauV. (2005). Méthodologie de diagnostic pour le projet de territoire: Une approche par les modèles spatiaux. Géocarrefour, 80(2), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.4000/geocarrefour.980
28.
LauriniR., Milleret-RaffortF., & LopezK. (2006). A primer of geographic databases based on chorems. OTM Confederated International Conferences (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 1693–1702). https://doi.org/10.1007/11915072_75
29.
LempertR. J., PopperS. W., & BankesS.C. (2003). Shaping the next one hundred years: New methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis, RAND Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1626.html
30.
LittleP. E. (2007). Political ecology as ethnography: A theoretical and methodological guide. Horizontes Antropológicos, 3. http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-71832007000100012
McKenzieE., RosenthalA., BernhardtJ., GirvetzE., KovacsK., OlweroN., & ToftJ. (2012). Developing scenarios to assess ecosystem service tradeoffs: Guidance and case studies for InVEST users. World Wildlife Fund. https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/344/files/original/InVEST_Guide_high_resolution_FINAL.pdf?1345734126.
33.
MEA—Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Island Press. https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/ecosystem-and-human-well-being-framework-assessment
34.
MetzgerJ. P. (2001). O que é ecologia de paisagens?Biota Neotropica, 1(1–2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032001000100006
35.
NeugartenR. A., HonzákM., CarretP., KoenigK., AndriamaroL., CanoC. A., GranthamH. S., HoleD., JuhnD., McKinnonM., & RasoloheryA. (2016). Rapid assessment of ecosystem service co-benefits of biodiversity priority areas in Madagascar,PloS One, 11(12), e0168575. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168575
36.
OCHA (2013). Disaster response in Asia and the Pacific: A guide to international tools and services, United Nations, Bangkok. https://www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/ROAP_DisasterGuide.pdf
37.
OECD (1994). Environmental Indicators. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
38.
OestereichJ. (2000). Land and property rights: Some remarks on basic concepts and general perspectives. Habitat International, 24(2), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(99)00040-5
39.
PaetzoldA., WarrenP. H., & MaltbyL. (2010). A framework for assessing ecological quality based on ecosystem services,Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.11.003
40.
PalmerM. (2002). Propagation of uncertainty through mathematical operations. In Fluid mechanics: Experimental techniques. MIT. http://web.mit.edu/fluids-modules/www/exper_techniques/2.Propagation_of_Uncertaint.pdf
41.
ParsonsM., ThomsM., & NorrisR. (2002). Australian river assessment system: AusRivAS physical assessment protocol. Commonwealth of Australia and University of Canberra. https://ausrivas.ewater.org.au/protocol/download/protocol-1.pdf
42.
SaatyT. L. (1981) Decision making for leaders: The analytical hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Lifetime Learning Publications.
43.
SilvaJ. S. V., & SantosR. F. (2011). Estratégia metodológica para zoneamento ambiental: A experiência aplicada na Bacia Hidrográfica do Alto Rio Taquari, [Methodological strategy for environmental zoning: the applied experience in Upper Taquari River Basin]Embrapa. http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/69899/1/Livro-JVila-InfotecaOut2012.pdf
44.
SieberJ., & PurkeyD. (2015). Water evaluation and planning, system (WEAP): User guide. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.weap21.org/downloads/WEAP_User_Guide.pdf
45.
TomanM. (1998). Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics, 25(1), 57–60.
46.
VasconcelosV. V., Martins JuniorP. P., & HadadR. M. (2013). Methodology for rapid assessment of aquifer recharge areas. Geologia USP, 13(2), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z1519-874X2013000200005
47.
VasconcelosV. V. (2014). Recarga de aquíferos. Subsídios à gestão hídrica e ambiental—Bacia do Rio Paracatu SF7 (PhD thesis, UFOP, Ouro Preto. Série D, vol. 30, no. 55). http://www.repositorio.ufop.br/handle/123456789/3590
48.
VerutesG. M., & RosenthalA. (2014). Using simulation games to teach ecosystem service synergies and trade-offs. Environmental Practice, 16(3), 194–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1466046614000222
49.
WRI—World Resources Institute (2016). Participatory scenario development. UNEP. http://www.gcfreadinessprogramme.org/sites/default/files/Participatory%20Scenario%20Development%20Tool%20and%20Guidance.pdf
